I thought the first two episodes were excellent, but the second half of the season was a letdown, in terms of how well the story was plotted.

Good enough to try the second series, though, especially if it does get better as I've read here and elsewhere.

Many of the loose ends of season one are addressed later on the show. Season four is just beginning this month.

Season 2 was very good. But I'm four episodes into season 3 and it is fantastic. I never binge watch TV but I'm having a really hard time turning it off in between episodes. Will probably finish season 3 tomorrow.

Dr_Chimera wrote:First two eps of Fargo, season 3, are better than expected. Nice atmosphere. Some awful music, but I'm not expecting perfection.

Unfortunately Fargo got progressively worse. This would have been fine as a brisk 6-parter, but instead overstayed its welcome with 10 episodes.

I think the writer Hawley should be sent packing. He is writing most of the episodes and is simply running out of ideas. It seems he got his life philosophy from some Bob Dylan song, which would be fine if he weren't hammering the same point home over and over again.

Unlike season two, there isn't a single sympathetic character. Not even ironically. I wound up hating everybody, and I think this is a bit of a problem. Gloria should be that character, and her point of view would narrate the story if the writer wasn't an idiot. But she is used too infrequently and ultimately we don't know her.

Finally this season is persistently odious, grotesque. And for no apparent reason. There is no comic relief to carry you through it. Not even a cool shoot-em-up ending. Just many pointless long shots and lingering scenes. I don't want to watch David Thewlis throwing up into a toilet or picking his rotten teeth.

Not sure how to feel about Star Trek: Discovery yet. I watched the first two episodes, which are sort of the prologue. They were clunky, but no more clunky than previous Star Trek pilots - probably less.

I think we'll know what kind of show this is once we get a feel for the Discovery crew. Jason Isaacs and the rest of the crew will not come in until episode 3.

I notice some people have criticized the first episode of having too much action at the expense of character development, but I think once you get past episode 2 you will understand why this is. We do not meet most of our characters until the Discovery setting.

Dr_Chimera wrote:Not sure how to feel about Star Trek: Discovery yet. I watched the first two episodes, which are sort of the prologue. They were clunky, but no more clunky than previous Star Trek pilots - probably less.

I think we'll know what kind of show this is once we get a feel for the Discovery crew. Jason Isaacs and the rest of the crew will not come in until episode 3.

I notice some people have criticized the first episode of having too much action at the expense of character development, but I think once you get past episode 2 you will understand why this is. We do not meet most of our characters until the Discovery setting.

Watched ep 3. It's good, but I think I agree with those who say that this show is really not Star Trek. A complete departure from Roddenberry's vision and to a much greater extent than Deep Space 9.

They could have called this show by any other name. Calling it Star Trek just seems like a way to CBS to tap into an existing audience.

I am not a Trekkie, so I can live with all of this. But it would be nice to see real Trek again.

I think STD is very inspired by Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country. Both movies portrayed Starfleet as a military organization and portrayed the tensions that created with the scientific and diplomatic aspirations of the Federation. The bio-engineer's anger that his science study was hijacked by Starfleet echo Kirk's son's fears that Starfleet was going to turn the genesis device into a weapon. Also, CBS made a big deal about hiring Nicolas Meyer, the writer/director of Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, as a writer on Discovery.